190A vs SpitVB

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Toad
This really is a question for Tony Williams, a person with far superior knowledge in this area than either you or I.

That said, being an intelligent man, I'm sure you agree that the ballistic energy imparted by a hit from a round is a key factor in damage. The chemical energy added/imparted by an HE round is also a factor in damage, but not necessarily "key"; it would depend on the amount of chemical energy, right? The more explosive compound generally the better. Otherwise, they wouldn't have needed the 30MM Minengeschoß if the 13mm Brandsprenggranatpatronen was doing all the necessary destruction, right?

I’m guessing you meant kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is of little importance when determining damage to a non-fluidal mass like an aircraft structure composed of sheet duraluminum skin and an aluminum structure as long as the round successfully penetrates. Against a fluidal mass target like a human being or a fuel tank kinetic energy would be a key factor due to hydro shock.

Originally posted by Toad
You compare the 13mm to the .50BMG.

Commonly published ballistics show:

.50 BMG                   Projectile weight 43.3g  Muzzle Vel 880
13MM Panzergranatpatrone  Projectile weight  36g   Muzzle Vel 730

Now, focus on the 13mm Panzergranatpatrone. Does anyone dispute that this round was significantly inferior to the .50 BMG API? It's ~15% lighter and ~15% slower than the .50 BMG. Both of these rounds are "kinetic" rounds. As you say, 1/3 of the typical MG131 fighter belt was made up of these inferior rounds. 33% of the belt made up of rounds that are significantly inferior to the .50 BMG.

Kinetic energy differences are only important to penetration and ballistic trajectory. In this case the .50 API would only travel farther than the 13mm AP after passing through the target. The .50 BMG would not make much more than a 12.7mm hole through the target aircraft, the 13mm AP would make an approx. 13mm hole, nothing more … unless you are implying that the 13mm round would fail to penetrate, in which case the 13mm AP round would actually do more damage, not less.

Originally posted by Toad
The 13mm Brandsprenggranatpatronen made up 2/3 of the belt. The projectile alone... no explosive... was even more markely inferior to the .50 BMG in terms of imparting kinetic energy because it was 4g lighter yet. It was left to the explosive compound to provide the punch. Now, this would depend on how much of what explosive compound was in the hollowed out portion, wouldn't it?

And this, you admit, you don't know.

So, what exactly are you basing your claim on then?

The Panzergranatpatrone slug is clearly kinetically inferior; that's 33% of the belt. The kinetic energy of the Brandsprenggranatpatronen projectile is even worse. You don't know the amount/type of the explosive compound in the Brandsprenggranatpatronen. What case are you making then, since you don't know how much explosive was in the round?

I’m basing my claim on the fact that the 13mm AP and the .50 API are equal in damage potential. The .50 API was more effective in damaging critical components like the engine and fuel tank due to its higher kinetic energy, but not structural damage because there was not enough structure to stop the projectile, i.e. the projectile passed through the structure unable to transfer all its kinetic energy into damage. Now … that would make the 13mm Brandsprenggranatpatrone superior to the .50 API in damaging aircraft structures. Do you really think the Germans would use a HE/I round if it was inferior to a simple AP slug?

Originally posted by Toad
As noted in other places, these discussion have all been done, redone and overdone and RESOLVED before. I'd wager this exact ballistic discussion can be found in a previous version with the Search feature of this BBS.

Yet... it NEVER ends, does it? I think that may be a reason such threads draw the responses some find objectionable.

I don’t think this issue has been resolved, and I can’t find any thread where it has. That the issue has been discussed to death does not mean the issue has been resolved. I do however remember the thread were we discussed the .303’s ability to penetrate. It went so far that one guy actually went out ant did some test shooting at different aluminum and steel targets. The kinetic energy of a round is drastically overrated in these discussions, as the “live fire” test showed; despite all the different rifle rounds fired the .45 ACP pistol round did the most damage to the targets because it was able to transfer most of its energy to the target whereas the rifle rounds just flew off into the woods after puncturing a small hole, taking most of its energy with it.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Urchin
But, for my rough example, lets take the Hispano 20mm.  It was a large round with high muzzle velocity (130 grams at 860 M/sec for the Mk II).  According to Tony Williams (who is a ballistics expert, as far as I know), the combination of kinetic energy and chemical energy rates a "damage" rating of 201.  As far as I know, this damage rating is relative to the other guns, but you'd have to ask him to be sure.

Now lets take the German 20mm Mg151.  I believe the Germans used a 2 AP, 2 HE, 1 Mine belt on the Western Front, and I've heard the proportion of Mine rounds was greater on the Eastern Front (although I don't know for certain).  The MG151 AP round was 117 grams with a MV of 720 M/sec.  So right away it is perfectly obvious that this round isn't going to do as much damage as a Hispano 20mm (its smaller and it is going slower).  And sure enough, the "damage rating" on that round is only 110.  

This method of calculating damage is flawed. Both the Hispano AP round and the 151 AP round would do the same amount of damage to a wing or a vertstab, i.e. a 20mm hole. Only the difference in chemical power makes the Hispano shell more powerful than the MG151 HE/I.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by -ammo-


No hard feelings to mandoble, hazed, or any LW enthusiest.  I have just as much right to comment on this thread as anyone.  It was never personal for me.  I really did enjoy reading all 67 replies in this thread.  I am stuck at home in a post surgery setting and this was just what I needed.

seriously no hard feelings here either, I just got a bit annoyed by the 'luftwhine' comment again as it is used to kill off threads.I doubt you intended it that way but just look at the reactions it causes.People know this and jump in to cause the thread to deteriorate into squabbles. This is usually when HTC have to step in and moderate and i bet this tarnishes the threads subject for them and they tend to ignore it.who can blame them when the thread looks like a bunch of kids in a school yard.

As for the conspiricy thing.I have I guess accused HTC of a lack of interest in sorting out the LW planes and i think this stands true. My own opinion is this distaste for threads broatching the subject of LW planes started way back in Warbirds?.Something must have happened there for this idea that all LW people are the same. People get pigeon holed right away , they get upset by it and feel like no matter what they do it will be ignored.There nothing worse in a BB than feeling youre not a part of it fully.Most like me never even played Warbirds, we're not all the same people.

I dont think HT sets out deliberately to change the model of the 190s and 109s BUT theres a catalogue of weird things which people can be forgiven for thinking is strange.

The fact the ballistics model favours an AP round when axis rellied on HE a lot more. This is one which is understandable as if you have read up about how the various forces try to rate guns they also have a problem with rating the AP verses the HE. Its so complicated that generally the two types are rated seperately!! So HTC can be forgiven for finding this dfficult to model. BUT having said that there surely is a compromise to be made with the game by adding what you 'guess' is the affect and add this to our AP based ballistics damage. This is what i think many would call for. LW used Mine shells, we dont have them so we get a gun which the real LW would not keep if they didnt have the specialist mine shells. Without them they are a poor gun. So AH players are forced to use guns that dont really reflect the real thing as such. The only real disagreement is many think, as it is now, its too weak but they seem to be classed by one and all as trying to 'game the game' or trying to gain some advantage over others so they can kill easier. please! after 3 years of some 10 thousand kills do you REALLY think this is why we are asking for it?  This is a stereotypeing of us that is offensive if you ask me. I fly everything and i like to see the real character of planes Im here to play fairly by the rules and not try to game the game. I just want to see things appear as they really were.for asking we generally get abuse.

The way the 190A8 performs over 25k is so off of the charts its literally terrible as far as i can see. I have times to 30k in many references for the 190a8 and our 190a8 is out by over 10 MINUTES! I actually stopped at around 29K because it was so far off i thought it a waste of time finishing it.! I posted and it was said that it was the times for the MW50 190a8 i was reading.
DUH ok why the hell havent we got a MW50 190a8?? theres a lot of test done on it and there are the German figures in charts.If HTC suspects they are exagerated then by all means make it how you think it should be but please dont just not model it altogether.It was an integral part of the LW planes.

THe ju88a4 is the only pre 1943-44 medium/large bomber in the game. why such an early model? If it was for the battle of britain setups then why the ju88a4 that wasnt in the BOB?? its weird.

The 109G6 again is missing the MW50 yet i would suspect it wouldnt take an awfull lot to add a 109g6 with better performance and say that it is the MW50 version yet theres not even a whisper of an answer as to why it has never been done even though it has been asked a hundred times.

Dive speed for the 190d9 at top speed is less than a fully loaded P51D with almost 3000lbs of drag inducing ordinance. Why? am i not allowed to question it?

Each time a chart is found and displayed (example the deck speed 190a5) we get the same answers , 'The version in the test isnt the right model' . 'Your results are for the 190a8 with MW50 not the AH 190a8' was said to me and i thought well why dont HTC use the data and model THIS version? I cant grasp why HTC decided to leave MW50 and GM1 stuff out.

The weird cooling times on wep systems too which now im not even supposed to mention yet I still feel its not very representative of the real systems. This i can accept is never going to change if the current wep system remains but i still dont understand why we cant 'represent' them a little closer even with the 'less than fully realistic' version of WEP we currently use. Its not just for an easier time of it. I just want to find out how good the real MW50 or GM1's really were. Is this a crime?
 
The fact that it took almost a year and a half of complaints/requests about the engine bug on the 190A's to be looked into and fixed yet for the whole time we were called names for even daring to mention it.THEN the P38 was fixed after a very short time of complaints/requests on BB (for it to be strengthened in the tail).I was astounded as i didnt see one document or anything else which would show the strength we should expect yet it was changed. No one accused the requesters of 'gaming the game' or 'seeking advantage' when this was done did they? Its like a double standard for Lw guys in here , No really it is.

Its this sort of thing which makes people question whats going on and jump to silly conclusions. There is no consiricy just it seems a strange choice of models coupled to a difficult wep system coupled to an AP orientated ballistics model which together have removed most of what was actually 'great' about these planes.I would have thought by now its obvious im not doing this just for the sake of arguements or for seeking a dumb advantage over the allied types. I fly the P40E for gods sake! how does that make me greedy? I WANT to see the Allied planes performing perfectly too! Bring on the P47M and P51H etc. Im happy to see them but lets not jump all over someone if they question their model in AH. Its what this BB is all about mostly.

wow i droned on! maybe eddiek was right, i do 'diatribe' heheh

anyhow again no hard feelings ammo just a heads up to the fact it does annoy ALL Lw people when you say things like that or damage the discussions in the thread by changing topic...just like we have! ok Back to the thread topic!..........

[-ammo-]

Hazed-

No problem at all  my man.  I have always enjoyed your virtual company in the arena and on the UBB.

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by GScholz
This method of calculating damage is flawed. Both the Hispano AP round and the 151 AP round would do the same amount of damage to a wing or a vertstab, i.e. a 20mm hole. Only the difference in chemical power makes the Hispano shell more powerful than the MG151 HE/I.

That is not true at all.  Kinetic energy has a dramatic impact on something like the structure of an AC.  A good example would be the little mini-14 I used to own.   I was plinking in the country with both my mini-14 and my Remington model 541 some years back.  The Mini-14 fires a .223 caliber round. I was using basic mil surplus ball ammo for it.  I was shooting .22 LR  from my 541.  At one point I was shooting an empty 10 gallon metal can at around 100 yds distance.  The terminal ballistics of the two rounds was dramatically different on the can.  You would assume that both rounds would simply pass through metal can leaving it undisturbed on the ground.  Not so.  On several instances, the Mini-14 would literally lift the can into the air and the exit holes were much larger than the entry.  In the case of when the round struck the thicker rims of the can,  the can was shredded pretty good.   When the 541 hit the can,  you could here an audible plink when the bullet actually struck it and the can would move a little with the bullet passing through.

On an AC fuselage or Wing, if a 50 cal struck just the skin and passed through nothing but the other side, then I could see just a 12.7 mm hole.  I actually doubt that though,  the projectile would become "upset" and would move along its trajectory oblong.  However if the round struck something hard like framework, its going to cause some serious damage.

The debate over what was more effective, Kinetic energy or Chemical energy of small cal AC weapons is an old one.  Both the 50 BMG, and the 13MM were certainly capable of serious damage to AC.

[Nashwan]

The 109G6 again is missing the MW50 yet i would suspect it wouldnt take an awfull lot to add a 109g6 with better performance and say that it is the MW50 version yet theres not even a whisper of an answer as to why it has never been done even though it has been asked a hundred times.

The RAF/USAAF equivalent of MW50 was 100/150 octane fuel.

By the second half of 1944, almost all the Spits in the UK, and the VIIIth AF escorts, were running on it.

That would give a Spit IX a speed of about 360mph on the deck (current AH Spit IX is 320), and the Mustang close to 400 mph at sea level. That's not modelled either.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by -ammo-
That is not true at all.  Kinetic energy has a dramatic impact on something like the structure of an AC.  A good example would be the little mini-14 I used to own.   I was plinking in the country with both my mini-14 and my Remington model 541 some years back.  The Mini-14 fires a .223 caliber round. I was using basic mil surplus ball ammo for it.  I was shooting .22 LR  from my 541.  At one point I was shooting an empty 10 gallon metal can at around 100 yds distance.  The terminal ballistics of the two rounds was dramatically different on the can.  You would assume that both rounds would simply pass through metal can leaving it undisturbed on the ground.  Not so.  On several instances, the Mini-14 would literally lift the can into the air and the exit holes were much larger than the entry.  In the case of when the round struck the thicker rims of the can,  the can was shredded pretty good.   When the 541 hit the can,  you could here an audible plink when the bullet actually struck it and the can would move a little with the bullet passing through.

On an AC fuselage or Wing, if a 50 cal struck just the skin and passed through nothing but the other side, then I could see just a 12.7 mm hole.  I actually doubt that though,  the projectile would become "upset" and would move along its trajectory oblong.  However if the round struck something hard like framework, its going to cause some serious damage.

The debate over what was more effective, Kinetic energy or Chemical energy of small cal AC weapons is an old one.  Both the 50 BMG, and the 13MM were certainly capable of serious damage to AC.

Yes it is. The .233 round is balanced on the verge of being unstable in flight and is easily “upset”, not like any WWII ammo and even modern cannon rounds. Anyways, the kinetic energy difference of the .223 and the .22LR is astronomical compared to the .50 cal and MG131. They could both shred like you described, but they were not easily “upset”.

A more comparable test would be to shoot at that can with 7.62x51mm NATO and 7.62x63 Long. Do you think you would see any difference?

EDIT: Alternatively 7.62x39mm Russian vs. 7.62x51mm NATO.

[Batz]

The 109G6 again is missing the MW50 yet i would suspect it wouldnt take an awfull lot to add a 109g6 with better performance and say that it is the MW50 version yet theres not even a whisper of an answer as to why it has never been done even though it has been asked a hundred times.

Thats not correct we have a late war canopy but our g6 is an early g6. The later g6 had a wooden tail and looked a little different.

The g6/as (DB605AS) didnt have mw50. The serial produced g6/as with mw50 was the g14 (DB605ASM).

MW-50 wasnt not available until June 44.

You will see the designation g6/as and g14/as, the difference being that the g14 had MW-50 while the g6/as did not.

The g6/as had a larger supercharger that gave  poor performance at low and medium altitudes. On the eastern front  where almost all combat took place it wasnt so great. It was fine for the West, as mentioned by Knoke in his book "I flew for the Fuhrer."

The g14 ws better suited on the Eastern front because its at low-medium alt where mw50 is of the most benefit. Thats why when some folks claim that the a8 should have mw50 it doesnt make sense.

What we need is a 109g6/as and a g14. The g6/as for scenarios and a g14 so we can tool around in the main (low med alt ). This way the g10 could be perked.

The 109s needed for ah (all though there certainly are many other planes that are needed more) are:

109e7b (easily adapted from the e4)
109f2 (easily adapted from the f4)
109g6/as (easily adapted from our current g6)
109g14/asm (same as above)
109k4

I am not gonna touch gunnery except to refer Toad to Tony Williams work. The problem with gunnery is almost always a product of the range counters. But there would appear that rounds that relied on chemical energy get short changed a bit.

But AH is just a game like any fps its about fun 1st. If reading the report on the site linked by mando just pisses you off and takes away from your enjoyment dont read it. But if you get mad enough to post and repost and repost the same stuff (especially the stuff in the site linked) you most likely will be mocked.

Folks like ammo wont waste an opportunity to use the word "lwhiner".

[GScholz]

Isn't the 109F4 just an unpressurized F2? If so why would we need an F2? (unless it's the F2Z with GM-1 boost)

[Batz]

no the f2 had mg151/15mm

For events and scenarios and in ah2:ToD the f2 would have a roll. Especially if an early eastern front scenario/ToD were to develope. The f4 wasnt on station in the east until the Germans were near Moskow.

The e7b had a db601n (same eng as the 110c4) and had a bomb and could carry a dt.

The e7 would fit into early med and earl east front.

If you judge planes by main useage then we dont need any more then the top 4 (el gay 7 p51 spit and what ever the hell the next one is).

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Batz
Thats not correct we have a late war canopy but our g6 is an early g6. The later g6 had a wooden tail and looked a little different.

The g6/as (DB605AS) didnt have mw50. The serial produced g6/as with mw50 was the g14 (DB605ASM).

MW-50 wasnt not available until June 44.

The 109G5 had a DB605D with WM-50, it’s a 1943 model if I’m not mistaken?

Originally posted by Batz
The g14 ws better suited on the Eastern front because its at low-medium alt where mw50 is of the most benefit. Thats why when some folks claim that the a8 should have mw50 it doesnt make sense.

Then why does the charts mentioned show much better performance? Perhaps they mistake the WM-50 for the GM-1?

Originally posted by Batz
I am not gonna touch gunnery except to refer Toad to Tony Williams work. The problem with gunnery is almost always a product of the range counters. But there would appear that rounds that relied on chemical energy get short changed a bit.

But AH is just a game like any fps its about fun 1st. If reading the report on the site linked by mando just pisses you off and takes away from your enjoyment dont read it. But if you get mad enough to post and repost and repost the same stuff (especially the stuff in the site linked) you most likely will be mocked.

Knowing you’re getting “short changed a bit” does tend to take away some of the “fun”, doesn’t it?

[straffo]

You can serioulsy ask for 5 more 109 when some country have between 0 and not enought planes ?

[Kweassa]

straffo, Batz means in due course.

 It's not like he's wanting to get all those 109s right now!

 Personally, I'm not sure about the E-7 or the F-2, but we do need a G-14. Much the same, the RAF needs a fMK.IX Spit.

[GRUNHERZ]

The 13mm are very fine weapons, 2 of them in the cowl can shread any fighter in a matter of seconds at 200-300+ yards. In this respect they are identical to a pair of US .50 cal - I am in a position to tell as I am probably one of a very few people who have regularly flown Bf109G6/10 and SBD-5 (2x50cal) as fighters.  The 13mm are very nice - and they are a substantial amount of firepower well worth the decrease in performance from G2 to G6 the vast majority of the time.

The 50 cal seems to be and is more powerful on average because it does have a higher muzzle velocity making it more powerful and accurate at longer ranges. The major factor IMO is that 50 cals are most often mounted in 4-8 gun packages. So even assuming the 13mm and 50cal were modeled with identical capability any offhand comparsion would have you testing the 13mm with 2 gun level of firepwer and comparing it to the 50cal with at least a 4 gun level of firepower - in other words at least twice as destructive if both are modeled the same.

Now I have no idea if the HE element is modeled in the 13mm. If it is then cool! If not then it would be cool if HTC puts it in...

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by Batz
Folks like ammo wont waste an opportunity to use the word "lwhiner".

Thats not true,  I rarely use that term at all.  What are "folks like ammo"?  feel free to email me at zemke@satx.rr.com to keep from further sending this thread off topic.